Wraithe, firstly hi and welcome
.
You wouldnt be biased would you?, just going by that link in your sig.
I appreciate your passion and reasons for opposing nuke energy.
But I do question some of your stats - I have read 5- 10 years to get a station up and running, never heard of 20 years before.
Why are you so focused on the U.S as an example why not places like Sweden, France, Japan who love seemingly wholeheartadly love nuke energy - some balance please. And yes i would like some links to back up some of these claims please.
I keep hearing how unfeasible it all is, well if its so economically unfeasable how come India and China are like bulls at the gate for the industry?
Also if nuke energy plants only have a life of 20 years how come all those old ones are hitting 50 years? whats the life of gas fired turbines in conventional power stations - they dont last forever either.
Bert: what do you mean by "At best Nuclear energy will only contribute at best about 6% of our energy needs" what one solitary power station are you talking about here? - I would think we need many nuke power stations thats for sure.
I wouldnt be so sure that they won't find an elegant and cheap and simple way to neutralise nuke waste in the next 200 000 years - I would put 20 to 50 years on it maybe being done. I have an inkling there is a great deal of interest in finding a way to do this even now research is happening - I read of one idea being worked on was using microbes and bacteria that can break down the waste into something harmless - thats just one idea out there.
Anyway if qld can fill there coffers and prosper greatly with coal money- so can we here with yellow cake - I dont see the diff - as for the amount of uranium out there, who knows were they'll find more large deposits thats not a foregone conclusion that it finite here or anywhere.